The next 2, 4, 8 years

[jasonxctf]

call me crazy, but i'm really tired of hearing about the founding fathers and "what they believed in." And why we need to stick with this set point of view that is nearly 250 years old. Times have changed, the world has changed. Why do we have to be so rigid with their beliefs? I'm not saying that they don't deserve all of the credit for the initial formalization of the country, i'm just saying that we don't need to try and turn them into god's.

 

They were just the Barack Obama's, George Bush's, Harry Reid's and Mitch McConnell's of their day.

[southsider2k5]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done.

 

The Articles of Confederation would be the best argument against that.

[jasonxctf]

by the way, as for the next 2, 4 and 8 years...

 

2 years= Obama wins re-election in a very close, and nasty race. He's helped in part by a 3rd party GOP splitoff after the party nominates a Moderate (Romney) and the tea party nominates their own candidate who gathers 10-15% of the vote nationwide. 44-40-14-2% results nationwide. Meanwhile, the Republicans keep the house (losing 15 seats) and pick up 2 more seats the senate. They knock off democrats (McCaskill, Tester, NE Open (after Nelson decides to not seek re-election), and Conrad) The Democrats pick off Scott Brown and John Ensign. New Senate is a 51-49 split. Bottom line, this country is a near 50/50 division. House lead of 224-211 for Republicans

 

4 years= Two houses moving in 2 different directions. Nationally, the country is swing back to the Democrats They take back the house by picking off 20 seats to take a 231-204 advantage. The economy is rocking. DOW hits 17,000. However the mathematics of the Senate, moves the house back to the Republicans. They pick off 4 senate seats. (Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson). Senate is now 51-49 Republican. Say hello to Speaker Van Hollen and Majority Leader McConnell.

 

6 years= All hell breaks lose.

[bmags]

I think they should make a plan to phase out the filibuster at a date set in the future where they won't know what party's in power. (10 years.)

[caulfield12]

Oh yeah well I....but..ug...I agree.

 

My point was that the system wasn't designed with the current realities in mind, and that it's significantly harder to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, than when the Senate first formed.

 

The executive has consistently expanded, and it's not like Obama is doing anything to stop that.

 

 

This is going to go back and forth.

 

I would argue that no president in recent history came close to exerting as much power as Bush did from September 12th, 2001 through the 2006 election cycle (with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, waterboarding and rendition, Guantanomo Bay, etc.)

 

Look at how weak Clinton was in 94-95, Obama now, Bush Sr. in the last year or so of his administration after sporting a 91% approval rating at the conclusion of the first Gulf War...most presidents (except Clinton, there some unique elements with his situation) have lost power because of the economic situation deteriorating.

 

The only ones who don't fit that profile would be Nixon (impeachment), Reagan (Iran Contra and various scandals like the S&L bailout, but not enough to keep Bush Sr. from winning) and LBJ (Vietnam war and protest movement).

 

Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. (the economic universe was falling apart in October, 2008) and Obama all have been on the wrong sides of economic cycles.

[caulfield12]

by the way, as for the next 2, 4 and 8 years...

 

2 years= Obama wins re-election in a very close, and nasty race. He's helped in part by a 3rd party GOP splitoff after the party nominates a Moderate (Romney) and the tea party nominates their own candidate who gathers 10-15% of the vote nationwide. 44-40-14-2% results nationwide. Meanwhile, the Republicans keep the house (losing 15 seats) and pick up 2 more seats the senate. They knock off democrats (McCaskill, Tester, NE Open (after Nelson decides to not seek re-election), and Conrad) The Democrats pick off Scott Brown and John Ensign. New Senate is a 51-49 split. Bottom line, this country is a near 50/50 division. House lead of 224-211 for Republicans

 

4 years= Two houses moving in 2 different directions. Nationally, the country is swing back to the Democrats They take back the house by picking off 20 seats to take a 231-204 advantage. The economy is rocking. DOW hits 17,000. However the mathematics of the Senate, moves the house back to the Republicans. They pick off 4 senate seats. (Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson). Senate is now 51-49 Republican. Say hello to Speaker Van Hollen and Majority Leader McConnell.

 

6 years= All hell breaks lose.

 

There's simply no way they can nominate Palin. Romney would certainly be the odds-on favorite right now, but he's definitely going to have to show more of a personality, he was so wooden and boring in the last campaign. If he had the charisma of Rubio, and his speaking ability, he would be more dangerous. Daniels in Indiana, Christie in NJ, those guys are getting all the ink now, but not so long ago, Jindal in the GOP and John Edwards were the "heir apparents" and look how far they've both fallen.

 

I think there will be some serious consideration given to dumping Biden in an effort to win back one of those states like Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I'm thinking of names like Crist, Strickland and Rubio if I'm on Obama's team. Delaware doesn't matter. Of course, you can argue the VP choice can hurt a candidate but usually can't help very much. Undoubtedly, it would be hard to get Rubio, but I think putting the first Hispanic (or Asian) on the top ticket would send a strong signal.

Edited November 4, 2010 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

I think they should make a plan to phase out the filibuster at a date set in the future where they won't know what party's in power. (10 years.)

I still actually don't mind the Senate having a gigantic that must be overcome for the biggest of the biggest of legislation on principle...I'd actually say that is somewhat consistent with the originalist idea of the Senate as a place where things go to slow down...but I despise the current version of the filibuster...where everything other than naming a post office is subject to it, the Senate can't get anything done, and there is zero effort required from the minority to use it.

[Jenksismyhero]

call me crazy, but i'm really tired of hearing about the founding fathers and "what they believed in." And why we need to stick with this set point of view that is nearly 250 years old. Times have changed, the world has changed. Why do we have to be so rigid with their beliefs? I'm not saying that they don't deserve all of the credit for the initial formalization of the country, i'm just saying that we don't need to try and turn them into god's.

 

They were just the Barack Obama's, George Bush's, Harry Reid's and Mitch McConnell's of their day.

 

I agree they shouldn't be deified, but their opinions, arguments and debates are absolutely relevant in today's world. They're all ideas we still struggle with today. And IMO it's kind of an insult to say they were the Obama/Bush's of today. I think they (maybe not all, but most) were much, much, much more than that.

 

I mean, think about it. What prominent lawyer/politician in today's time would volunteer to represent terrorists in court (Adams). What politician/military leader would be given the keys to the entire country, with endless power and authority, and simply give it up (Washington). Etc. etc. These dudes were much more than your average joe politicians.

[Texsox]

I agree they shouldn't be deified, but their opinions, arguments and debates are absolutely relevant in today's world. They're all ideas we still struggle with today. And IMO it's kind of an insult to say they were the Obama/Bush's of today. I think they (maybe not all, but most) were much, much, much more than that.

 

I mean, think about it. What prominent lawyer/politician in today's time would volunteer to represent terrorists in court (Adams). What politician/military leader would be given the keys to the entire country, with endless power and authority, and simply give it up (Washington). Etc. etc. These dudes were much more than your average joe politicians.

 

They were complex people. What leader of today could spend twenty years in France, drinking and partying while his wife and kids are back in the US? I'll only mention slavery. Could the American public have accepted a closed Constitutional Convention?

[Balta1701]

I mean, think about it. What prominent lawyer/politician in today's time would volunteer to represent terrorists in court (Adams).

A whole lot of lawyers do that. The right wing has decided that they are committing treason for doing so. If you'll recall, one of Dick Cheney's daughters ran one of those outside-ads calling a set of lawyers who had done exactly that the "Al Qaeda Seven" and calling the DOJ the "Department of Jihad".

[Jenksismyhero]

A whole lot of lawyers do that. The right wing has decided that they are committing treason for doing so. If you'll recall, one of Dick Cheney's daughters ran one of those outside-ads calling a set of lawyers who had done exactly that the "Al Qaeda Seven" and calling the DOJ the "Department of Jihad".

 

None were prominent, nationally known figures staking their reputation and practice on the line. Adams was one of the top lawyers and lawmakers in Massachusetts and he represented the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre (IN Boston no less). I don't think that's on the same scale.

[StrangeSox]

Right, Adams was pretty heavily attacked for doing that, like anyone who defends Al Qaeda suspects are now. It was a big risk, personally and professionally, to do that.

 

But, any time we want to hero-worship the founders or treat their ideas as holy writ, we need to remind ourselves that they counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and treated women as property. They were human, and they certainly were fallible. Political science and philosophy have both advanced quite a bit since the late 18th century, and virtues from that time may simply big wrong in a modern society.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, Adams was pretty heavily attacked for doing that, like anyone who defends Al Qaeda suspects are now. It was a big risk, personally and professionally, to do that.

 

But, any time we want to hero-worship the founders or treat their ideas as holy writ, we need to remind ourselves that they counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and treated women as property. They were human, and they certainly were fallible. Political science and philosophy have both advanced quite a bit since the late 18th century, and virtues from that time may simply big wrong in a modern society.

 

SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc.

[Balta1701]

SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc.

Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves?

[StrangeSox]

SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc.

 

Amendments that were written long after they were dead did those things.

 

I'm not trying to drag them through the mud, I just think some of the negatives get glossed over in "what the founders intended" talk, almost like "what would Jesus do?"

[StrangeSox]

Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves?

 

I'm assuming he's referring to them leaving an amendment mechanism, but that's a good point on that issue.

[Jenksismyhero]

Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves?

 

And what ideas was that based on?

 

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

[Balta1701]

And what ideas was that based on?

 

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

That would be the Declaration of Independence...not the Constitution.

[StrangeSox]

And what ideas was that based on?

 

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

 

But an examination of what laws they actually formed shows they were very, very far from that ideal. I think it's a bit of a stretch to give the group of people who counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and allowed only white, land-owning males to vote credit for equal protection and suffrage rights.

[Jenksismyhero]

That would be the Declaration of Independence...not the Constitution.

 

Ugh, I said the ideas/issues they debated. That's the point i'm trying to make.

[Soxbadger]

Its a little different representing British soldiers than AQ terrorists as well. British soldiers were a representation of the crown, which was perhaps the most powerful govt in the world, and current govt of the US. (Boston massacre is before the revolution). Adams defended the British so that there would be a fair trial and that it would not further escalate the conflict. If the British soldiers were convicted in a sham trial, the British undoubtedly would have intervened. Furthermore, Adams had a Tory (British sympathizer) play the role of prosecutor. So you had a revolutionary as a Defense attorney and a Tory as a Prosecutor. Adams was not risking anything, he was not representing "terrorists" he was representing British soldiers who were being tried in criminal court.

 

A better comparison would be if a US soldier was charged with being a terrorist in Afghanistan and one of the most prominent Taliban supporters defended the American soldier, while an American was chosen as the prosecutor. Or to use AQ, if a Bush supporter was hired to be the Defense attorney while the Prosecutor was a AQ supporter.

 

Regardless the lawyers who support AQ terrorists were taking far more risk than Adams. Adams was representing the establishment (British Crown) and trying to put on a fair trial. In the AQ trials you had the establishment trying to do everything in its power to give an unfair trial, and you had a few attorneys trying to stand up for them.

 

Many of them did good things, but there are times were we need to think for ourselves, instead of relying on others.

 

[StrangeSox]

Also, that idea, like a lot of the other founding principles, comes from 17th and 18th century philosophers and not directly from the founders. Which is good, and doesn't take away their efforts and their recognition of good philosophical positions, but it wasn't an idea that Jefferson came up with.

[Jenksismyhero]

But an examination of what laws they actually formed shows they were very, very far from that ideal. I think it's a bit of a stretch to give the group of people who counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and allowed only white, land-owning males to vote credit for equal protection and suffrage rights.

 

Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality.

 

I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically."

[StrangeSox]

Ugh, I said the ideas/issues they debated. That's the point i'm trying to make.

 

But they ultimately came down on the wrong side of those issues and had to be corrected. It wasn't because they debated the issues and came to the wrong conclusions or compromises (hey, another example of compromise not always being the right choice!) that the slaves were eventually freed or that women eventually were able to vote. Those freedoms were obtained through their own struggles decades later, and giving the old, wealthy white dudes who decided against them in the first place credit is a bit of an injustice, imo

[StrangeSox]

Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality.

 

I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically."

 

Hobbs had that idea originally in the 1600's. I don't think slaves were freed because of a line in the DoI, they were freed because it was the right thing to do, regardless of what some politicians and philosophers wrote decades prior.